. . . [F] ear is being swept from the streets of somethough not all- American cities.

John Mitchell, September, 1971

New York Times, 1971: IV, 16

Enterprising police are making news rather than history in the preparation of their annual reports. Dry tabulations are giving way to charts, pictures, and other illustrations that catch the eye and tell the story of the problems and accomplishments of the department.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1966a: 58

During the 1960's, “crime in the streets” emerged as a major political issue. 1 Consequently, measurement of changes in the amount of crime also became politically important. As a candidate in 1968, Richard Nixon, recognizing this, proposed the use of the District of Columbia as a site for an evaluation of his anti-crime proposals by means of crime statistics: There is another area where the Federal Government has an opportunity to make a dramatic demonstration of its concern with the problem of crime, its commitment to new solutions and the efficacy of its proposals. That is in Washington, D.C.the nation's capital where the authority of the Federal Government is great and its prerogatives many. Washington, D.C. should be a model city as far as law enforcement is concerned-a national laboratory (New York Times, 1972).

Marc Galanter's 1974 essay, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead,” portrayed large bureaucratic organizations as the archetypal repeat players in the legal system; Galanter's account, however, devoted relatively little attention to the distinctive legal capacities of organizations as organizations. This article extends Galanter's analysis by considering the ability of large bureaucratic organizations to “internalize” legal rules, structures, personnel, and activities. Specifically, we posit that the relationship between law and organizations has undergone four interrelated shifts in recent years: (1) the legalization of organizational governance, (2) the expansion of private dispute resolution, (3) the rise of in-house counsel, and (4) the reemergence of private policing. These processes interact with one another to transform the large bureaucratic organization from being merely a repeat player in the public legal system to being a full-fledged private legal system in its own right. Although “have not” groups may gain some short-run advantages from the introduction of citizenship norms into the workplace, the organizational annexation of law subtly skews the balance between democratic and bureaucratic tendencies in society as a whole, potentially adding to the power and control of dominant elites.

In the research from which this paper is derived, we have observed and tape-recorded approximately 115 lawyer-client conferences. Our observations were made in two sites, one in California and one in Massachusetts. In this paper we take an in-depth look at the nature of lawyer-client discourse by focusing on one conference. We explore three of the most important themes in that discourse. First is the discussion and characterization of the legal system and its major actors. Next is the exploration of the advantages and disadvantages of disposing of disputed issues through negotiation or trial. Finally, the third theme involves the “legal construction of the client,” where a lawyer and client discuss rules of relevance that govern the legal process as well as the aspects of the client's experience that are to be the subject of legal inquiry. The paper concludes by exploring the way each of these themes expresses or embodies prevailing legal ideologies and influences the way cases develop and are managed.

Why study the legal systems of other times or places? Are there reasons beyond an antiquarianism or exoticism that seeks stimulation for a palate jaded by preoccupation with the minutiae of American law? The increased understanding to be gained by such intellectual exploration seems to me similar in origin to the pleasure any of us takes in travel. Differences of physical environment, modes of social intercourse, or patterns of culture awaken us to phenomena which at home are so familiar as to be almost invisible. When we resume our mundane round, the residue of such impressions compels us to recognize the contingency of our own ways, and leads us to look for explanations.

Explorations of differential justice suggest that apparent relationships between class, race, and legal treatment may be explained by the more extensive conviction histories found among lower class and minority populations. But these findings have emerged without adequate exploration of the antecedents of a defendant's criminal record. This article examines the determinants of accumulated criminal histories, viewing the conviction awarded a defendant as the first stage in the construction of a prior offense record. Path analytic techniques were applied to data drawn from a sample of persons arrested for murder in order to examine the nature of relationships among the demographic characteristics of defendants, their prior offense records, access to legal resources, and ultimate dispositions. Patterns evident from the analysis suggest that the operation of the criminal record in the legal system constitutes a continual cycle in the confirmation of criminality. Prior record, itself partly a product of discretionary treatment, becomes a salient factor in the accumulation of additional convictions not only through its direct effect but also through its influence on access to private counsel and bail, which in turn significantly affect outcome.

This study analyzes data for state criminal defendants prosecuted in New York to determine the bases upon which judges make pretrial release decisions for these defendants. Treating statutory law as defining the category of legal variables, it finds legal factors substantially affect decisions about whether to release a defendant on recognizance, the amount of bail required, and whether to offer a defendant a cash alternative to a surety bond. The impact of these factors varies, however, depending upon the particular decision being made. Factors not prescribed in the statute—extra-legal factors—are also found to affect these pretrial release decisions. Their impact, too, is decision context specific. Among the extra-legal factors that affect pretrial release decisions, the effects of status characteristics of the defendant pale in comparison to the effects of bench bias and measures of the defendant's dangerousness.

We explore the influential claim that “legal origin”—the historical origin of a given national legal system in the common law or civil law—accounts for a significant degree of cross-national diversity in economic regulation and development. We show that the claim is undermined by problems in index construction and by a misreading of the implications of the common law/civil law divide for the respective roles of courts and legislatures in law making. We argue that a critical factor, instead, was the timing of industrialization in relation to the emergence of legal institutions associated with the modern business enterprise (the employment relationship and the joint stock company). We also show how distinctive “legal cultures” of the common law and civil law have played a part in setting national systems on separate pathways to economic development.

A rich theoretical literature describes the disadvantages facing plaintiffs who suffer multiple, or intersecting, axes of discrimination. This article extends extant literature by distinguishing two forms of intersectionality: demographic intersectionality, in which overlapping demographic characteristics produce disadvantages that are more than the sum of their parts, and claim intersectionality, in which plaintiffs who allege discrimination on the basis of intersecting ascriptive characteristics (e.g., race and sex) are unlikely to win their cases. To date, there has been virtually no empirical research on the effects of either type of intersectionality on litigation outcomes. This article addresses that lacuna with an empirical analysis of a representative sample of judicial opinions in equal employment opportunity (EEO) cases in the U.S. federal courts from 1965 through 1999. Using generalized ordered logistic regression and controlling for numerous variables, we find that both intersectional demographic characteristics and legal claims are associated with dramatically reduced odds of plaintiff victory. Strikingly, plaintiffs who make intersectional claims are only half as likely to win their cases as plaintiffs who allege a single basis of discrimination. Our findings support and elaborate predictions about the sociolegal effects of intersectionality.

Formal equality and judicial neutrality can lead to substantive inequality for women and children, with social costs that extend beyond individuals and families and spill over into the larger social settings in which they are located. We consider the uniquely damaging effects of an “equality with a vengeance” (Chesney-Lind & Pollack 1995) that resulted from “tough on crime” policies and the 1980s federal and state sentencing guidelines that led to the incarceration of more women and mothers. We argue that legal equality norms of the kind embedded in the enforcement of sentencing guidelines can mask and punish differences in gendered role expectations. Paradoxically, although fathers are incarcerated in much greater numbers than are mothers, the effect threshold is lower and the scale of effect on educational outcomes tends to be greater for maternal incarceration. We demonstrate both student- and school-level effects of maternal incarceration: the damaging effects not only affect the children of imprisoned mothers but also spill over to children of nonincarcerated mothers in schools with elevated levels of maternal incarceration. We find a 15 percent reduction in college graduation rates in schools where as few as 10 percent of other students' mothers are incarcerated. The effects for imprisoned fathers are also notable, especially at the school level. Schools with higher father incarceration rates (25 percent) have college graduation rates as much as 50 percent lower than those of other schools. The effects of imprisoned mothers are particularly notable at the student level (i.e., with few children of imprisoned mothers graduating from college), while maternal imprisonment effects are found at both student and school levels across the three measured outcomes. We demonstrate these effects in a large, nationally representative longitudinal study of American children from the 1990s prison generation who were tracked into early adulthood.

There is little research on the relationship between adolescent motherhood and the criminality of the children. Data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development reveals that children from large families who were born to women who began childbearing early are at greatest risk of criminality. Three alternative explanations for this relationship are explored—the life course-immaturity account, the persistent poor parenting-role model account, and the diminished resources account. We find no evidence supporting the first account, but in various ways the analysis provides credible support for the latter two accounts, which themselves are not mutually exclusive.

This investigation examines the success of various types of litigants appearing before the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1925 to 1988. The analysis parallels the earlier studies by Songer and Sheehan (1992) and Wheeler et al. (1987) that applied the core concepts introduced by Galanter's groundbreaking analysis of why the “haves” come out ahead to study litigant success on the U.S. Courts of Appeals and state courts of last resort. The findings suggest that repeat player litigants with substantial organizational strength (“haves”) are much more likely to win in the federal courts of appeals than one-shot litigants with fewer resources. The “haves” win more frequently in published decisions, even after controls are introduced for the ideological makeup of the panel. The advantage in appellate litigation enjoyed by repeat player “haves” is remarkably consistent over time. In particular, the U.S. government has compiled an impressive record in these courts by dominating opposing litigants over the 64-year period of analysis.

The significance of apology after serious injury depends on social and cultural factors that appear to be understood differently in Japan and America. As a consequence, what is considered a sincere apology is not the same in the two societies. Moreover, the role of an apology as an ingredient in the formal resolution of legal disputes diverges. Salient legal aspects of apology are discussed, along with the possibilities that an apology may be a defense to a claim, that it may be an admission of another's claim, and that an apology may be a legal remedy for injury. The role in Japan of the formal letter of apology, shimatsusho, is described. It is suggested that apology may be an underdeveloped aspect of dispute resolution in America. There are some injuries when an apology alone surely is inadequate compensation, but there are other injuries when traditional common law remedies are unsatisfactory and an apology may be a crucial element in the recognition and restoration of human relationship.

Black civilians are more likely to be stopped by police than white civilians net of relevant factors. Less is known about whether or not racial inequalities exist in police use of force during stops. Using data on over 2 million police stops in New York City from 2007 to 2014 and drawing on literatures on race, policing, and the Black Lives Matter movement, we test hypotheses regarding the associations between race, civilian behavior, age, and police use of force. We also investigate whether recent reforms reduced any observed inequality in police violence during stops. Findings show that Black and White civilians experience fundamentally different interactions with police. Black civilians are particularly more likely to experience potential lethal force when police uncover criminal activity and this disparity is greatest for black youth compared to white youth. Overall, if there were no racial disparities in police use of force, we estimate that approximately 61,000 fewer stops of black civilians would have included police use of force and 1,000 fewer stops would have included potential lethal force from 2007 to 2014. Furthermore, while reform efforts substantially reduced the number of stops annually, inequalities in police use of force persist.

In an influential article, Schwartz and Orleans (1967) reported that emphasizing normative obligations to obey the law had a greater positive impact on tax compliance than did emphasizing deterrence factors. In this article, we report the results of a conceptual replication of that earlier experiment, within the context of a dynamic model of tax schema change.

Prior to filing the 1987 tax year return (the first affected by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, TRA), taxpayers viewed one of two videotapes, one emphasizing the social consequences of the TRA and normative duties, the other emphasizing the personal consequences of the TRA and strategies to reduce tax liability. A control group of taxpayers did not receive information about the TRA. Data on attitudes, beliefs, and self-reported compliance were collected at three points during the tax season. Tax return data from the IRS were also obtained. The results indicate that the normative and personal consequences messages had predictable and persistent effects on tax-specific attitudes. However, these effects did not translate into changes in basic values or compliance, as reflected by either the self-report or the official tax return data. Possible explanations for the discrepancy between the results reported by Schwartz and Orleans (1967) and this experiment are considered.

The last few years have witnessed a resurgence of interest among social scientists in the possible effects of negative sanctions in producing conformity to norms. During the first half of this century deterrence ideas were often the object of debate and research. Debate, however, was usually conducted on an ideological level, and the extant research generally suggested that punishment was of minor importance as a behavioral influence (Ball, 1955; Tappan, 1960: 243-255). As a result, many social scientists came to regard the question as either theoretically uninteresting or as empirically non-problematic.

This paper is the third in a series of articles describing the results of efforts to investigate ways in which the burdens of proof applicable in criminal and civil trials could be defined more precisely and more objectively. The burden of proof for determining guilt in criminal trials in American courts is the presentation of evidence which would lead “a reasonable man” to believe “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant did indeed commit the act for which he was charged. This standard is applicable to all criminal acts irrespective of their heinousness or the circumstances under which they were committed. In civil actions the burden of proof necessary for determining negligence on the part of the defendant is “by preponderance of the evidence.”

Discretionary legal decisions have become a recent focus of theory development and policy-oriented applied research. We investigated parole release decision making in Pennsylvania from both orientations. Analyses of post-hearing questionnaires and case files from 1,035 actual parole decisions revealed that the Parole Board considers institutional behavior and predictions of future risk and rehabilitation in the decision to release on parole. Predictions seem also to be based on diagnostic judgments identifying causes of crime such as personal dispositions, drugs, alcohol, money, and environment. A one-year follow-up of 838 released parolees showed that predictions were virtually unrelated to known post-release outcomes. An actuarial prediction device was developed that is more predictive than subjective judgments. The use of decision guidelines to structure discretion is discussed, as well as the utilization of our research in guideline development by Pennsylvania.

This article surveys recent works that seek to enrich criminal law policy analysis by incorporating social norms. The article does not purport to adduce the “true” or even the “best” definition of “social norms”; rather it breaks that term down into a cluster of related concepts that are frequently subsumed within it, including “social organization,” “social meaning,” and “social influence.” The motivation for grouping these concepts together, moreover, is as much political as conceptual. Using a pragmatic standard of assessment, the article uses the social norms literature to identify a host of politically feasible law enforcement policies—from curfews to gang-loitering laws to order-maintenance policing to reverse stings—that deter as well or better than severe prison sentences but that avoid the destructive effect of those sentences on inner-city communities.

This article addresses the role of quantitative evidence and methods in trials. Major arguments against the introduction of explicit computation information are considered and contrasted with findings about the characteristics of the unaided human decision maker. Emphasis is given to behavioral decision theory and the heuristic biases it reveals. Consideration is given to the symbolic versus “truth-finding” functions of trials, mathematical models (especially linear) of decision making, advocacy tactics that follow from what has been learned about how humans process information, the diagnostic value of aggregate probabilities, the notion of particularistic proof, and the evaluation of witness credibility. We conclude that unaided human decision making embodies certain normal and lawful errors, and that the exclusion of mathematical guides to aid a fact finder, while avoiding some problems, exposes the fact-finding process to the heuristic biases of intuitive decision making.

Over the past 20 years, international commercial arbitration has been transformed and institutionalized as the leading contractual method for the resolution of transnational commercial disputes. It has become an important institution of the growing international market. Although the process is far from unidirectional, this work of social construction can be described as a rationalization in the Weberian sense and also as an “Americanization” that has permitted U.S. litigators to shape the rules to favor their adversarial skills and approaches. An informal justice system has come increasingly to resemble “offshore litigation.”

Drawing on Bourdieu's analytical tool of the legal “field” and, in particular, using the notion of an “international legal field,” this case study reveals how the continuing competition for business and for legitimacy—between civil law and common law, “grand old men” and “technocrats,” academics and practitioners—constructs and transforms the system of (international private) justice. As is true generally with respect to law, the details of the competition serve to build the careers of practitioners, to develop the area of practice, and to produce and legitimate the relevant “law.”